Recorder of Storey County, Nevada, does not show that all of the parties having record title to the premises originally located by E. Belcher et al., have conveyed their respective interests to Apple and Schneider, or their grantees, from whom the Segregated Belcher mining company purchased the 160 feet in question. Said application for patent is accordingly rejected. On the eighteenth June, 1873, and before the expiration of the sixty days notice by publication the Leviathan mining company, by its president, James J. Robbins, filed an adverse claim against said application for patent, and commenced suit against said Segregated Belcher mining company, on the fifteenth July, 1873, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Judicial District in and for the district of California. On the same day that said adverse claim was filed, the Register informed all parties in interest of the filing thereof, and informed the adverse claimants that they would be required to commence suit in accordance with the law, or their adverse claim would be considered waived. On the seventeenth July, 1873, the Segregated Belcher mining company, filed with you an appeal from the action of the Register and Receiver, and the order made by them on the eighteenth day of June, allowing said adverse claim to be filed, and staying all proceedings upon said application until the matters in controversy should be settled in a court of competent jurisdiction. The seventh section of the mining act of May 10, 1872, declares: "That where an adverse claim shall be filed during the period of publication, it shall be upon oath of the person or persons making the same, and shall show the nature, boundaries and extent of such adverse claim." Said adverse claimant is an incorporated company, as appears by a copy of the certificate of incorporation. It also appears that James J. Robbins was the president of said Leviathan mining company at the date of filing said adverse claim, and that he was duly authorized in behalf of said company to file an adverse claim against said application. In his sworn statement, said James J. Robbins alleges that the Leviathan mining company is the owner and in the actual possession of the Leviathan lode; that said Leviathan company and its grantors have occupied and improved the premises claimed by them in accordance with the mining rules, customs, and regulations in force in the mining district where such claim is situate. That more than five hundred dollars have been expended upon the premises claimed by the Leviathan company in actual labor and improvements. That the premises described in said application for patent conflict with and em brace a part of the premises claimed by the Leviathan company; and that the ledge or lode claimed by the Segregated Belcher mining company "is not at any point upon the surface within seven hundred (700) feet of the point of commencement of the said survey of applicant, as indicated by posts numbers one and four in said plat and field By an abstract of title from the office of the county recorder of Storey County, Nevada, it appears that Isaac Watson and nine others located two thousand linear feet of the Leviathan lode, May 19, 1863. It appears from said abstract that the Leviathan company purchased said premises from W. H. Patterson, but it does not appear that Theo. S. Read and W. J. Albian, two of the original locators, ever conveyed the interest which they acquired by virtue of location to said Patterson, his grantors, or any other persons. The adverse claimants also filed a plat and the field notes of a survey of said Leviathan lode, made by Hugo Hochholger, U. S. Deputy-surveyor, which show the relative positions of the two claims. Indorsed upon said plat and field notes of survey is the certificate of said Deputy-surveyor that the amount of improvements upon said Leviathan lode exceeds five hundred dollars, and that the plat and field notes are correct. This plat shows that the southerly end of the Leviathan claim is crossed at nearly right angles by the survey of the Belcher claim, although the Leviathan survey lies easterly of posts numbers two and five, herein before referred to. In short, the Leviathan mining company have asserted such an adverse claim as is contemplated by the mining act of May 10, 1872, and it would have been necessary to suspend proceedings upon said application for patent until the controversy had been "settled or decided by a court of competent jurisdiction or the adverse claim waived," had the Segregated Belcher mining company complied with the law and instrnctions in the matter of making out their application for patent, which they have not. You will, therefore, inform all parties in interest that said application for patent is rejected, and allow sixty days from the date of your notification within which an appeal may be taken to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior. Should the Segregated Belcher mining company desire to commence de novo, they will, of course be permitted to do so, upon their full compliance with the law and instruc tions. You will acknowledge the receipt hereof and report what action is taken in the premises. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. ADJOINING PROPRIETORS, patented ground is subject to entry by. 21 eral's approval of survey. 36 Foreign corporations cannot assert an, to unpatented ground.. 43 76 Only those showing an interest in the premises can assert an. 80 81 Rejected as identity of lodes was not alleged. 83 Rejected for not commencing suit in court. 145 Wherein an, cannot be amended... 156 Where all but one of the several co-tenants withdraw protest, the 158 Must be filed with the Register and Receiver of the proper land Rejected because not sworn to in the district where the land is 160 194 Rejected because not made out in the proper form. Rejected because suit was not commenced in court as ordered. 216 218 Copies of deeds, or an abstract of title and copy of location, to be 232 Rejected because unaccompanied by survey made and certified by ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, applicants for different lodes may be made, How, may protect their rights.. 22 26 Taken without notice to opposing party cannot be considered.... 164 222 Proceedings when, of parties who posted notice and diagram can- AGENT, any member of a company may be, for all.. The non-mineral affidavit may be sworn to by an, when the prin- AGRICULTURISTS, contests between miners and.. 222 16 and 151 77 In contests between miners and, proof as to mineral or non-min- 233 19 AGRICULTURISTS-Continued. PAGE. When case of contest between miners and, may be reopened.... 125 143 Amicable arrangement between miners and, for segregation of 148 Miners claiming adversely to, may be confined to original loca- 191 Minerals discovered after patent has issued to... 208 Mining claim fraudulently entered by... 212 Fraudulent entries of mineral land by, and corporations. 213 After hearing and entry by, case cannot be reopened on account AGRICULTURAL, land adjudged, cannot be entered as mineral unless Entries may be cancelled, if valuable minerals have been included. 233 ........ at any time before patent issues... 163 339 157 215 ALASKA TERRITORY, status of mining claims in... 222 The first, receive patent for conflicting ground when second ap- 232 APPLICATION FOR PATENT, of Reed and Sanders. 36 Several non-contiguous tracts may be embraced in one 35 An adverse claimant having dismissed his suit cannot delay, by 126 New trial must be granted unconditionally to warrant a further .149 In case of divided and undivided interests in mining claim.. 159 165 179 204 Rejected because claim was not located in accordance with law... 209 223 In case of, of an unincorporated association, the several papers 234 Rejected because the plat did not show accurately the bounda- In taking, the points of exception must be stated...... After entry is made the, rests upon the party alleging the mineral 77 CASE OF THE, Overman Silver Mining Company v. Dardanelles Min- ing Company, Nevada.... 181 PAGE. CASE OF THE-Continued. New Idria Mining Company's application for patent for mines in 47 Salt Lake Mining Company, for patent for the Flagstaff Mine, 61 Julia Gold and Silver Mining Company's application for patent 96 105 Jenny Lind Mining Company et al., v. Eureka Mining Company. 166 188 219 CAVEAT, request to file, against issuing patent denied. 153 78 writing.... CERTIFICATES, Registers' and Receivers' fees for affidavits, or other Surveyor-general's, on plats of mill site.. Of incorporation should be filed with the application of incorpo- Of Improvements in case placers embrace legal subdivisions.... 235 June 25, 1867, supplemental to circular of January 14, 1867. 14, 1867.. 26 193 223 239 245 247 May 16, 1868, circular No. 21. 248 July 25, 1870, relative to fees. August 8, 1870, under acts of July 26, 1866, and July 9, 1870... 253 261 August 3, 1871, relative to citizenship.. 267 267 March 20, 1872, relative to taking testimony as to character of March 26, 1872, modifications of instructions of September 7, 1871. 268 270 June 17, 1872, correspondence relative to segregation of mineral 297 Act of February 18, 1873, relative to mineral lands.. 315 March 18, 1873, under act of March 1, 1873, relative to expendi- tures on claims.... 315 July 15, 1873, relative to mineral lands.. 316 November 20, 1873, relative to surveying mining claims. 319 CINNABAR deposits cannot be entered as placers..... 60 citizen...... 134 158 142 All proof except of, must be made within the district where the CLAIM, definition of the term, as used in the mining statutes........ CLAIMANTS, [See APPLICANTS FOR PATENTS and ADVERSE CLAIMANTS.] COLORADO, number of feet of a lode that could be located in October, COMSTOCK LODE, clause inserted in patents for claims on or near Bullion Mining Company v. 420 Mining Company on the. |